The Green-Libertarian Coalition

Here is an idea for a website I am thinking of launching, but if anybody else beats me to it, that’s fine with me. I’m not in this for myself, but for my fellow human beings. So if you see an idea here you like and have the ambition to run with it, like actually creating the website or applying for the 501(c)(4) status, go for it, as long as you adhere to all these principles. I also would welcome suggestions as to other areas of agreement.

Who We Are

We are a coalition of angry citizens who believe neither Democrats nor Republicans are listening to their grass roots, and are controlled by powerful corporate interests, especially in the banking and defense/security sectors. We are mainly left-libertarians, Greens, right-libertarians (those who launched the original grass-roots Tea Party movement to support Ron Paul) and traditional conservatives. One might think that people generally thought to be to the “left” of Democrats would have little in common with people generally thought to be to the “right” of Republicans. However, one might be wrong. The Green-Libertarian Coalition believes there is a great deal of agreement among Greens and left-libertarians on the left hand and right-libertarians on the other hand. While there may be other areas of agreement, the most obvious commonalities include the following:

Peace: We all are for peaceful engagement with the rest of the world, and oppose war. We oppose the careless killing of civilians at all times and oppose all bomb, missile or other attacks on countries in the absence of a Congressional declaration of war.

Reduced military spending: There is probably disagreement as to a specific level of cuts. Some might want to see military spending cut by 50%, others less, but we all believe it should be reduced. The sequester would have been a good start, but Congress reversed those cuts and undid what good they did.

CIA and NSA: While there may be some value in so-called human intelligence, black ops interventions in foreign countries must be halted, along with CIA participation in drug trafficking. Neither the CIA nor the FBI should be spying on political dissidents unless there is probable cause to believe a crime is being or has been committed. Indiscriminate collection of people’s phone records must be stopped. There is only one purpose for such spying and data collection — to intimidate or discredit those opposed to government policies, or to silence the few government officials who act in the public interest and against corrupt, powerful interests.

The Federal Reserve: At a minimum, there must be transparency, starting with a full audit of the Fed’s activities for the past 10 years.

Corporations: All corporate subsidies must be eliminated. Corporations and their officers must be held accountable for all debts they incur and damages they cause. Too big to fail/jail must be broken up into smaller units that can be held accountable. Bankruptcy laws must not be abused to allow corporate assets to be stripped before liabilities for debts and damages are paid. Pension obligations must not be turned over to PBGC so that bondholders can be paid.

Trade: Free trade is possible only with nations that protect the rights of all people. The new world order of unelected, corporate-dominated WTO courts is antithetical to free trade.

War on drugs: Certainly, marijuana and hemp cultivation must be legalized. All individuals should be free to buy or sell marijuana with no restriction other than the age of the purchaser. There may be some substances, especially refined substances, that should continue to be controlled, but users should be treated with education and medication, and even sellers should be treated humanely with an eye toward alternatives to incarceration.

Federal power: The Federal Government abuses its power. Corporations make use of this concentrated power to pre-empt and thwart state and local reforms of environmental protection, product labeling, employer health insurance and education. Most of these are not remotely related to interstate commerce. The Federal Government should continue to enforce equal protection of the law and guarantee each state has a republican form of government as stated in the Contitution. Other than that, power should be devolved to the states.

Keeping commitments: Whether or not we agree with government programs such as Social Security, commitments made to seniors and veterans must be kept. We are particularly opposed to cuts in pensions and medical care for enlisted retirees while general officers are exempted from such cuts.

Ballot access: The Republicans and Democrats have deliberately made it difficult for alternative movements to get started through an unfair petition process and by freezing third party candidates out of debates. We support ranked choice voting (instant runoff) for all elections, both partisan and non-partisan. People who advocate for interest voting or proportional representation should not be unfairly disparaged as “quota queens.”

To be sure, there are areas of disagreement such as taxation and whether in the long term essential services should be provided by private sources or by society in general (government). However, as long as we waste our resources on war, spying on one another for no reason, a futile war on drugs, the resultant Prison-industrial complex and bailouts of corrupt corporations, there will be nothing left for education, health care, infrastructure or caring for the old or infirm, whether those things are provided by private or public institutions. Thus, these 10 core beliefs are more important than other positions on which we may disagree, such as government-provided education or healthcare. Candidates who support items we agree on and when elected act to further those aims are preferable to almost any of the politicians holding Federal office today.

We believe the most successful “fusion” candidates will be those who emphasize these 10 core positions and prioritize accordingly. Naturally, elected officials must vote their conscience. However, a Libertarian candidate who campaigns on reductions in defense spending, but once elected votes for a budget that slashes funding for programs that benefit our most vulnerable citizens while making no cuts to the defense budget is likely lose support from Greens. Likewise, a Green candidate who campaigns against Federal power but once elected pushes programs that increase Federal power in order to advance Green objectives is likely to lose support from Libertarians. We believe either of these would be a mistake and weaken our ability to address the 10 points of agreement. To win our support or endorsement, candidates are advised to pledge that they will prioritize the 10 points of agreement and if elected will not press more divisive issues until we have succeeded in moving the country forward on the 10 points.

Purpose

The Green-Libertarian Coalition would be a social welfare organization dedicated to freedom from excessive taxation, both state and non-state terrorism and war, to personal privacy, to the ability of government and/or private agencies to care for the infirm or vulnerable and to the fullfilment of society’s contractual commitments to those who have contributed all their working lives. As such, we will investigate formation of a 501(c)(4) organization and will promote these goals through lobbying. We are dedicated to educating the public on our 10 core areas of agreement, promoting communication among apparently disparate political groups and philosophies, finding additional areas of agreement and developing strategies for individuals to work together in areas of agreement without compromising each individual’s core political philosophy.

We are non-partisan and will encourage political candidates who agree with our beliefs regardless of what party label they run on. We will solicit people who share these beliefs to challenge candidates, in either Democratic and Republican primaries, who have shown a lack of commitment to these beliefs. If neither the Republican nor Democratic party offers candidates who support our core beliefs on the general election ballot, we will solicit people to step forward under a 3rd party or independent label. In turn, we pledge to vote for such candidates in preference to candidates who have not shown such commitment. As Greens and left-libertarians, we pledge to vote for Republicans, Libertarians or any other 3rd party candidates supporting these 10 points of agreement in preference to Democrats who pay lip service to Green and left-libertarian positions but who “compromise” and bow to political pressure for war and other interventionist policies, permit violations of Constitutional rights or the human rights of non-US populations, kow-tow to corrupt corporate interests or continue the drug war and excessive imprisonment. As Libertarians and traditional conservatives, we pledge to vote for Democrats, Greens or any other 3rd party candidates supporting these 10 points of agreement in preference to Republicans who pay lip service to Libertarian and conservative positions but who “compromise” and bow to political pressure for war and other interventionist policies, permit violations of Constitutional rights or the human rights of non-US populations, kow-toe to corrupt corporate interests or continue the drug war and excessive imprisonment.

We encourage 3rd party and independent candidates who agree with our core beliefs to run under a “Green-Libertarian Coalition” or other similar labels, but will endorse any candidate who is dedicated to these beliefs, regardless of party affiliation, and will endeavor to avoid splitting this vote. If both Green and Libertarian candidates are running for the same office in a general election, support our core beliefs and make the pledge to tread softly on divisive issues, we will not take sides. We will endorse either both or neither. If any PAC associated with us contributes financially to their campaigns, it will contribute equally.

=====================================================================
We’d like to create a website with links to allow people to create an “account” providing contact information and identifying State and Congressional district, and to indicate whether they are prepared to help with either 1) a financial contribution or 2) volunteer to circulate ballot access petitions, 3) become a candidate or 4) do other volunteer work. We need a back end to collect this information in a database that can be accessed by candidates for office who agree with our core beliefs.

If people say they will contribute financially, we would need payment methods once 501(c)(4) status is obtained.

Related

Worth noting is that it was written at about the same time that Plaza Del Sol gave life to Podemos as a political party.

This coming December Podemos is expected to win the elections against the two major legacy parties; the conservative Peoples Party and the – let’s not gag – Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party.

Syriza’s, Greek and EU’s future are playing out in real time. Then there is India.

“NEW DELHI (AP) — An upstart anti-corruption party won a smashing victory in elections to install a state government in India’s capital, dealing a huge blow to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist party.”

If a similar effort aiming to bring Greens, the Socialist Alternative, old style conservatives and various libertarian tending voters under one umbrella, such post-victory coalition (“fusion”,) once certain prioritized benchmarks were met, would naturally splinter apart with each, then, more ideologically homogeneous faction embarking in the pursuit of their ideals.

I think that it’s significant that in Greece the wining ruling coalition encompasses the most left wing democratic reformers and the most right-wing reactionaries, the Golden Dawn party. No such coalition is even being proposed here. One would think that if it can be done in Greece, it should be doable here.

Perhaps, since a similar alliance was informally proposed by Nader and, to a lesser degree Kucinich, Kevin Zeese, et alia, we should consider applying pressure on them to dig into their contacts and start calling/organizing – perhaps on a dedicated YouTube channel – discussions and debates between representatives of these factions. The web-site which you propose would be directly associated with the YouTube forum.

I had a brief exchange with Kevin Zeese about such a party. His response – I left it at that – was that as a party such an alliance would be unworkable, but that it could/should form the backbone of an allied popular movement.

If, as the Del Sol movement led to Podemos, such a “fusion” movement were to lead to a party, I’d have no objections

Maybe we might want to put our heads together, figure out whom, how and with what proposals/materials to contact, and just go for it?!

http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

Excellent and most timely article!!!

Worth noting is that it was written at about the same time that Plaza Del Sol gave life to Podemos as a political party.

This coming December Podemos is expected to win the elections against the two major legacy parties; the conservative Peoples Party and the – let’s not gag – Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party.

Syriza’s, Greek and EU’s future are playing out in real time. Then there is India.

“NEW DELHI (AP) — An upstart anti-corruption party won a smashing victory in elections to install a state government in India’s capital, dealing a huge blow to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist party.”

If a similar effort aiming to bring Greens, the Socialist Alternative, old style conservatives and various libertarian tending voters under one umbrella, such post-victory coalition (“fusion”,) once certain prioritized benchmarks were met, would naturally splinter apart with each, then, more ideologically homogeneous faction embarking in the pursuit of their ideals.

I think that it’s significant that in Greece the wining ruling coalition encompasses the most left wing democratic reformers and the most right-wing reactionaries, the Golden Dawn party. No such coalition is even being proposed here. One would think that if it can be done in Greece, it should be doable here.

Perhaps, since a similar alliance was informally proposed by Nader and, to a lesser degree Kucinich, Kevin Zeese, et alia, we should consider applying pressure on them to dig into their contacts and start calling/organizing – perhaps on a dedicated YouTube channel – discussions and debates between representatives of these factions. The web-site which you propose would be directly associated with the YouTube forum.

I had a brief exchange with Kevin Zeese about such a party. His response – I left it at that – was that as a party such an alliance would be unworkable, but that it could/should form the backbone of an allied popular movement.

If, as the Del Sol movement led to Podemos, such a “fusion” movement were to lead to a party, I’d have no objections

Maybe we might want to put our heads together, figure out whom, how and with what proposals/materials to contact, and just go for it?!

Excellent…love the voting pledge…exactly the strategy we need. Trying to persuade Blue Republicans to do the same.

Southernfink

Excellent article A-R, question about point #2 Reduced military spending, all good by me but how to implement this as the MIC is currently under contract to supply and can sue for loss of income if the US government suddenly decides to halt the export of arms, for example military aid to Egypt is conditional, should these ‘conditions’ be broken military aid should be reduced and that set’s in motion an other chain of events similar to ISDS clause.

”A delay or a cut in $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt risked breaking existing contracts with American arms manufacturers that could have shut down production lines in the middle of President Obama’s re-election campaign and involved significant financial penalties, according to officials involved in the debate.

Since the Pentagon buys weapons for foreign armed forces like Egypt’s, the cost of those penalties — which one senior official said could have reached $2 billion if all sales had been halted — would have been borne by the American taxpayer, not Egypt’s ruling generals.” from this article

ISDS clauses are the greatest obstacle to real progress, corporations influence over government matters has to become a thing of the past, and that could be hard considering 37 of the worlds largest economies are corporations.

sisterlauren

Long time, no see. I saw your comment on the Alternet article this morning and wanted to say hi. Your question,

Remember how Bush and Obama signed to give 70 Billion of military aid to Israel between them and if that order get’s canned, the MIC will promptly sue the US via ISDS in it’s contract to supply …[?]

jogged something in my mind. I have been talking to Israelis lately which is great troll hunting, if you can get past the abuse. They are very abusive. But your comment hit a live wire regarding 9/11 and who did it, so I figured I’d better look you up and see if I can figure out what that is.

Hope all is well with you and yours, on my end I’m sleeping a lot better. I like Kerry a lot better than Hillary for our sec of state. I think he is doing a great job. What do you think?

In the links is good information that confirms how ISDS are being used, and then combined with what we know about the TPP it opens up an whole new window of opportunity.

I don’t know if I want to compare Kerry to Hillary, I think both of them and the entire US government are tied to the effects of existing trade agreements.

sisterlauren

Your work sounds really exciting although it is mostly going right over my head. I will have to read up on it. Lately I have been focused on the Israeli/Islam issue, you know, for world peace. I like Kerry a lot better than Hillary, I think he is actually trying to help me. Good cop, bad cop.

My thought was about the blackmail. You are pointing out a method of blackmail, the very same crime that I have been asserting is happening.

Chris Hedges is popular and attracts a lot of traffic. The Green Tea Coalition looks like a great idea to me. I was thinking of running for congress but I decided yesterday that I am just not ready for it. Maybe next time.

Southernfink

If one is not strong it helps to be smarter than your opponent, however if one is not smart it certainly helps to be strong.

If one is neither smart nor strong it will certainly be an advantage to be nice…☻

Smart people desire for world peace ☮, logic informs us we will live longer and that present’s a much better chance for our offspring to survive.

Then there is insecurity and greed, but even smart people can be greedy, perhaps the smartest people in the world are also the greediest, and then I am thinking of the ISDS clauses.

It’s fair to say that the ISDS are a form of blackmail, it’s do this for me or pay up big time.

We have a situation where the worlds largest exporter of weapons, appears completely unwilling or unable to cancel existing contracts with the MIC, for they have these nasty ISDS clauses in them, and is pushing for many more trade agreements with ISDS out onto the rest of the world, who will immediately suffer a similar fate of being tied to the financial agenda of over 600 corporations, but it’s many more companies that can initiate litigation via ISDS. Corporations can sue government’s but not the other way round.

While the US is conducting it’s WOT, it’s also putting US friendly regimes up in the nations conquered, who immediately start negotiating their local trade agreement, pretty soon there will be drones flying overhead protecting US interest’s”.

The reasons for the WOT have been changing, at first it was one thing then another and eventually it was to prevent the rise of the China economic powerhouse, strange I heard the same thing being mentioned for the reasons for the TPP, to isolate China, Therefore is the WOT connected to the current batch of trade deals ?

Trade deals with ISDS have been linked to corporations using the ISDS as leverage to further their own financial agenda, as in my previous comment, I showed that ISDS has been used in order to over turn existing bans on hydraulic fracturing in Canada.(But they can be used anywhere there are ISDS)

Why are all the so called allies of the US so perfectly willing to negotiate these highly unfavorable trade deals with ISDS clauses in them ?

The WOT is related to the current batch of trade deals, the ISDS trade deals are related to being used to make any government’s submissive to the financial elite.

Guess now all I am looking for is the connection to organized crime.

Kerry or Mrs H, are in much the same boat in that they are carrying out commands from above their pay bracket , it all goes back to ”end the duopoly”, end corporate influence over government matters.